That aside this incredibly simplistic and naive "team record" argument is used so often here. Hasn't anyone debunked this yet, or are you just listening to what you want? You do understand that basketball is a TEAM game, right? Tell me, have you not been critical of management & coaching over this period? How about the other 14 player mixes over those 6 years? Have you been critical of them? I'd say the answer to all 3 is a resounding YES. Yet you put the team win/loss record on Bargnani that he doesn't contribute to a "winner"?

Based on this silly reasoning of yours, Paul Pierce was garbage/useless/"no impact on making (his) organization a winner" for 4 years prior to KG and Ray joining him. Not a rookie, starting with his 3rd year in the league, his team's winning percentage over 4 years was 42% with the last year being a 24 win season. By comparison, the 6 year won/loss record by the Raptors TEAM, that you cite, was 43%. If you exclude last years abomination of a season (no training camp, insanely compressed schedule, his absence when they did worse than with him), the previous 5 years the team winning percentage was 45%.

So based on your reasoning, Pierce was bad for the Celtics and he contributed to winning even less than Bargnani has done. Is that a good judgement of Paul Pierce? There are plenty more such examples if you're still unable to see the silliness in judging a player's value by his team's bare record. Here's a quick one: in Michael Jordon's (the best of all time) first 3 seasons, his TEAM'S winning percentage was 44%. Was he not a winner? They didn't become a "winner" until he had Pippen (another HOFer) and Horace Grant on his team, just like Pierce wasn't a "winner" until he had 2 HOFers on his team.

Using bare individual statistics ignores many key contributing factors in judging a player. That's bad enough, but using bare team stats (win/loss) to judge an individual's value is beyond silly. There's much about Bargnani to criticize, but the original "0-9 record" argument, as well as this larger "team win/loss" is unnecessary grasping at empty straws.

Getting back to the original implication about the Raps doing better without his scoring, the team record over the 6 years you speak of says very differently, contrary to your "Not really"

pooka, what are you talking about? Dude, Bargnani's box score statistics are awful. His advanced metrics are awful. The team hasn't improved with him here or won. I don't need to cherry pick stats. Using any measure available, the guy is a below average player.

Is the Raptors awfulness all his fault? No, never said that. Colangelo is ultimately responsible for the crappy roster and second rate coaches but Bargnani certainly hasn't done anything to help turn it around. In fact, a big part of the reason for the failure here has been the insistence on making him a focal point of the rebuilding efforts when he wasn't capable of filling that role. Again, is that his fault? Only in the sense that he never rose to the occassion.

I can't speak for anyone else but I've never been a Bargnani fanboy or hater. He is what he is. Given a defined role (like Mitchell gave him his rookie year) and making him a mere complimentary piece might work but it won't work here. It's too late. Again, it's not all his fault but he hasn't exactly helped either.

pooka, what are you talking about? Dude, Bargnani's box score statistics are awful. His advanced metrics are awful. The team hasn't improved with him here or won. I don't need to cherry pick stats. Using any measure available, the guy is a below average player.

Is the Raptors awfulness all his fault? No, never said that. Colangelo is ultimately responsible for the crappy roster and second rate coaches but Bargnani certainly hasn't done anything to help turn it around. In fact, a big part of the reason for the failure here has been the insistence on making him a focal point of the rebuilding efforts when he wasn't capable of filling that role. Again, is that his fault? Only in the sense that he never rose to the occassion.

I can't speak for anyone else but I've never been a Bargnani fanboy or hater. He is what he is. Given a defined role (like Mitchell gave him his rookie year) and making him a mere complimentary piece might work but it won't work here. It's too late. Again, it's not all his fault but he hasn't exactly helped either.

Huh? What am I talking about? I'm talking about the subject you changed the discussion to. So now that argument "B" doesn't fly, you now want to expand it to argument "C" and "D"? Not jumping on this never ending merry-go-round.

I jumped in here because despite all the criticism that can be justifiably leveled at AB, the "0-9 when he scores 20+" was flawed anecdotal evidence that offers nothing of value to a discussion when presented as a stand-alone "point". That's been well "proven", if you will. You then countered with changing the topic to his not contributing to a winner based on nothing but the team's win/loss record over 6 years. I pointed out how flawed that simple reasoning is. Now you want to expand it to yet another argument. No mas!!!!

You don't like what he delivers to our team. I don't like what he delivers to our team. We differ on how useful it is to re-hash the same old arguments over and over and over. Apparently we also differ in the validity we assume in points that I think are misguided interpretation of stats to support an agenda/narrative. If that works for you, I'm glad it offers you some comfort.

BARGNANI STINKS!!!!!!!! there, I tried, but somehow that doesn't contribute much to the "winner" (as in me gaining something from being a fan) attitude I try and maintain, that is illustrated by my signature.

Huh? What am I talking about? I'm talking about the subject you changed the discussion to. So now that argument "B" doesn't fly, you now want to expand it to argument "C" and "D"? Not jumping on this never ending merry-go-round.

I jumped in here because despite all the criticism that can be justifiably leveled at AB, the "0-9 when he scores 20+" was flawed anecdotal evidence that offers nothing of value to a discussion when presented as a stand-alone "point". That's been well "proven", if you will. You then countered with changing the topic to his not contributing to a winner based on nothing but the team's win/loss record over 6 years. I pointed out how flawed that simple reasoning is. Now you want to expand it to yet another argument. No mas!!!!

You don't like what he delivers to our team. I don't like what he delivers to our team. We differ on how useful it is to re-hash the same old arguments over and over and over. Apparently we also differ in the validity we assume in points that I think are misguided interpretation of stats to support an agenda/narrative. If that works for you, I'm glad it offers you some comfort.

BARGNANI STINKS!!!!!!!! there, I tried, but somehow that doesn't contribute much to the "winner" (as in me gaining something from being a fan) attitude I try and maintain, that is illustrated by my signature.

It is a very relevant point in my opinion.

Also 4-24 as a starter is relevant as well when considering Raps are a .500 team with him off the bench and 1 game over .500 with him out. This one is more important in my opinion.

Also 4-24 as a starter is relevant as well when considering Raps are a .500 team with him off the bench and 1 game over .500 with him out. This one is more important in my opinion.

So different teammates in/out, different opponents, vastly different schedule, as well as many other factors, make no difference. Just your analysis of start/bench/out stats. Well, let's do that for someone else over a 40% bigger sample size.

Prior to the big trade, moving Jose and ED out, Gay in, the Raps played 46 games, compared to your 33 game sample for Bargs. Using the same participation criteria to evaluate Lowry's effectiveness over that span:

As starter:-------- 3-15 .166

Off the bench:---- 7-8 .466

Did not play:------ 7-6 .538

Does this mean the Raps are much better when Lowry doesn't start, and better still when he doesn't play at all?

So different teammates in/out, different opponents, vastly different schedule, as well as many other factors, make no difference. Just your analysis of start/bench/out stats. Well, let's do that for someone else over a 40% bigger sample size.

Prior to the big trade, moving Jose and ED out, Gay in, the Raps played 46 games, compared to your 33 game sample for Bargs. Using the same participation criteria to evaluate Lowry's effectiveness over that span:

As starter:-------- 3-15 .166

Off the bench:---- 7-8 .466

Did not play:------ 7-6 .538

Does this mean the Raps are much better when Lowry doesn't start, and better still when he doesn't play at all?

It's all fine to isolate bargs for this season. Take his whole tenure and see how is record is

So different teammates in/out, different opponents, vastly different schedule, as well as many other factors, make no difference. Just your analysis of start/bench/out stats. Well, let's do that for someone else over a 40% bigger sample size.

Prior to the big trade, moving Jose and ED out, Gay in, the Raps played 46 games, compared to your 33 game sample for Bargs. Using the same participation criteria to evaluate Lowry's effectiveness over that span:

As starter:-------- 3-15 .166

Off the bench:---- 7-8 .466

Did not play:------ 7-6 .538

Does this mean the Raps are much better when Lowry doesn't start, and better still when he doesn't play at all?

Your selective sample size for Lowry as a starter ignores one constant: Bargnani.

Lowry starting with no Bargnani puts the Raptors at 7-7 with 11 of those 14 games vs. teams plus .500 and playoff bound.

LOL, ebrian also totally misses the point, and I'm not sure if Matt does also, or just doing the RR 2-Step "my anecdotal information is more relevant than your anecdotal information".

*sigh* manipulation of useless "facts" to unnecessarily support the daily whining and bitching agenda (basketball is fun isn't it). It's worthy of the finest political spin doctoring! Yet with providing a clear example of how silly it is, some see my response as defense of Bargs (doh, see any forests lately?), while Matt either still doesn't get it or sticks to his guns like a mule on steroids wearing blinders, or both.

LOL! I don't understand why people still defend Bargnani. What's the point, and when will it stop? Like, what more evidence do you need?!

DOH, reading comprehension problem? I'm not defending him. I'm defending common sense against an assault by senseless manipulation of data to support a tired old agenda. As I said in an earlier post, there's enough valid stuff to dump on Bargs about (does that sound like defending him, doh?), that this simplistic and senseless manipulation of information isn't necessary. The point isn't when will defense of Bargs stop (that's not what's happening here), but when will an obsession with digging up more dirt (even when it's useless bullshit) stop.

LOL, ebrian also totally misses the point, and I'm not sure if Matt does also, or just doing the RR 2-Step "my anecdotal information is more relevant than your anecdotal information".

*sigh* manipulation of useless "facts" to unnecessarily support the daily whining and bitching agenda (basketball is fun isn't it). It's worthy of the finest political spin doctoring! Yet with providing a clear example of how silly it is, some see my response as defense of Bargs (doh, see any forests lately?), while Matt either still doesn't get it or sticks to his guns like a mule on steroids wearing blinders, or both.

Maybe you are missing the overall point: Bargnani playing makes the Raptors a worse team this season. My "anecdotal information" is backed up by wins and losses as well as numerous advanced stats.

If you could find me any shred of evidence to the contrary, I'd appreciate it. But thus far you have done the p00ka 2-step and turned it in to unrelated comparisons to Gay and Lowry.

Show me something that does not support the overall argument that "Bargnani makes the Raptors a worse team this season."

HAHA i just read the actual discussion....not one I should have commented on right at the end.

Anyway, having read it I just want to say that I think everyone is missing a point here.

p00ka is saying that these facts are being taken out of context to support whatever argument a person has. While this is absolutely valid, the overall point is that these stats support ALL the points discussed.

in other words, your breakdown of lowry's record with the team above does not prove nothing, but the opposite. It proves that the Raptors have a worse record with Lowry starting than when he is on the bench. That's a fact. They were more successful when he was injured and played with jose as the starter. That's also a fact

Now, the reasons why could be a variety of factors including the distribution of minutes to other players like lucas, or the strength of schedule, attitude problems etc. that have nothing to do with lowry's ability as a player.

Same with Gay, if the raptors or 0-3 or whatever when he has 4+ steals, it does not mean nothing, but is probably reflective of the way we played defense that game (more gambling, etc.) and not his ability as a player.

Some of these stats mean more than others, so more weighting should be given to some. For example, Lowry as a starter is more important than Gay getting 4+ steals in a game, because Lowry starting happens every game.

At the end of the day, however, it is difficult to argue with the fact that EVERY measurement mechanism, EVERY STAT, etc. all point to the same thing: our team has been mostly worse with Bargnani on the floor.

Strength of Schedule, teammates in and out, etc. all factor in, there is no question, and it would be stupid to say otherwise.

But there is NO COMBINATION of players, NO strength of schedule, NO amount of minutes, and NO amount of Primo Pasta that have made Bargnani effective this year. This is ultimately what Matt is saying.

In Sum: if a person does not want to use common sense to plainly see that Bargnani's shot selection, help defense, rebounding passing, and even shooting has been terrible this year and ergo made our team worse....

There is no stat, no metrics, no ANYTHING that you can twist and turn to say that we are in anyway a better team with him on the floor.

So, you can use the argument that "STAT X" is not a good way to measure how he makes us worse, which is what p00ka did. But like Matt said, there is a PLETHORA of stats which prove this point. Pick whichever one and be at peace with it.

Or just turn on the TV and watch the guy play for 5 minutes....either way

Maybe you are missing the overall point: Bargnani playing makes the Raptors a worse team this season. My "anecdotal information" is backed up by wins and losses as well as numerous advanced stats.

If you could find me any shred of evidence to the contrary, I'd appreciate it. But thus far you have done the p00ka 2-step and turned it in to unrelated comparisons to Gay and Lowry.

Show me something that does not support the overall argument that "Bargnani makes the Raptors a worse team this season."

Looking forward to what you find.

I'd have expected it from some on here whose brains haven't developed enough yet, but you still don't get it? I thought you'd be someone capable of understanding a simple concept and deal with a rather simple intellectual challenge. Or is this just being the "mule on steroids" I spoke of, fueled by your view of the poster that questioned your information spin doctoring? Obsession and stubbornness can turn smart people into stuck on stupid, so maybe that's it.

This isn't about arguing the merits of AB and what he represents to the Raps, good or bad. If you want to rant every other day about your opinion of Bargs, you know you'll have plenty of followers, so have at it with whatever "advanced stats" you can muster, if that does something for you. I wish you lots of fun doing so, but please don't confuse the "stats" you presented in this thread, which is what I responded to. as anything other than advanced (for the slow witted anyway) manipulation of anecdotal information to support your agenda. I gave you a perfect example of how the exact same type of information can be used to paint a picture of someone else, that is nowhere near what you want to hear, and you choose to take that as a comparison of players, rather than an example of how the data you did use in this thread is nothing but spin doctoring of manipulated data to feed the fire.

"Show me something that does not support the overall argument that "Bargnani makes the Raptors a worse team this season."
Looking forward to what you find."

I don't know if this is simply not getting the point, or a common technique I've noticed at RR: re-direct the conversation into something you feel you can win. I don't need to go looking to find the information you look forward to, because I have zero interest following you down the change of path. You have lots of people here who will gladly hold your hand and dance down that path with you, as they do every day. Though I would suggest using the type of numbers that you'd accept being applied to others too. I think it's silliness applying those type of numbers to anybody, but if you feel they're valid for one, then they're applicable to others, which you clearly don't accept,,,,,,, because it doesn't fit the script.